ashay21 wrote:I guess I am one of the one's who is fooling myself. Clinton is an economic genious. Reagonomics or should I say "trickle down economics" does not work and did not work.

Trickle down did work or revenues would not have sky rocketed.

"In The 1980s saw the income of the richest five percent increase by one-third, while the income of the poorest 10 percent fell by one-tenth. In this period, the income share of the poorest fifth fell to the lowest it had been since the 1950s, and the income share of the middle class fell to its lowest since World War II. The richest fifth, meanwhile, amassed greater wealth than ever before, receiving nearly 50 percent of America's income."

I am not a rich man. In fact I only make $39,000.00 per year. Why does everyone have to hate the rich? If you suddenly became rich would you give it away? Or would you just hate yourself? Why do liberals think it is right to take away something that someone has earned and give it to someone who hasn't?

I am about to start my own business, I have taken a second on my home, left my job and will be stocking shelves at Wal-mart during nights for $10.00 per hour so I can take this gamble. I could lose my house. If I am successful why should I have to give large ammounts of that money to the government? Anyone else in this country could take the same chances...but don't.

Don't get me wrong I do recognise the fact that I need to pay some taxes but enough is enough. When my father was starting out the federal government rate was in the neighborhood of 5%, now it is well above that. Why? In efficient goverment programs perpetuated by beurocrats and people who don't want to work.